Ignatius,
Are you saying that individual salvation of people is contrary to an understanding of the bride of Christ?
Not at all. Certainly individuals are saved. I'm saying though, that the priority in understanding salvation is corporate rather than individual. The formula is pretty straightforward. Christ is "saved" and even "justified" and "glorified" because of the resurrection. His glorious body even now is seated at the right hand of the Father...this is a present and eternal reality. He is never without his body...there is no salvation of a human person without the body. Therefore, however we parse the words, we are not *fully* saved until after the last judgement when our bodies are raised, reunited with our spirits, and raised to glory in the new heavens and new earth.
This body of Christ is, mystically (which basically means "a reality that is beyond our comprehension, but is nonetheless real"), the Church. Where does the Spirit of God dwell? In the Body of Christ. Where is the Body of Christ? At the right hand of the Father. But it's also here, and now, on Earth, present to us as the Church. The Church is made up of all who are saved. But even if not one person ever accepted the gospel, the Church would still be the Church, and would still be saved, because it is the Body of Christ.
Thus, it is the Body that is saved, and we individually are saved in and through the Body. We aren't saved by signing up on someone's roll, and having someone in a robe pour water on us. But we are saved
into the Church. It is within the Church that salvation "happens" from beginning to end.
I'm thinking on Scriptures such as:
- 'But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name' (John 1:12 NASB). At the time I became a Christian, there was no group that became the body of Christ. I was the only one around when someone shared the Gospel with me and I responded in faith and received salvation.
- What did Jesus tell Nicodemus? 'Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"' (John 3:3 NASB). He didn't tell Nicodemus, 'Unless you join the group, called the bride of Christ, you cannot see the kingdom of God'. Thus, individual salvation leads instantaneously to becoming a member of the bride of Christ. Individuals are 'born again' to make up the group, the bride/body of Christ.
- As for salvation, I don't accept your concept that 'Salvation is primarily the overcoming of death and as such is expressed primarily in the resurrection--Christ's resurrection is the justification, or vindication, of the Church. All the righteous will be justified in him'.
My understanding is that salvation involves being born again (John 3:3) and happens by God's grace through a person's faith in Christ alone (Rom 3:23-24; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). At that moment I am justified. When God justifies a person through faith, that faith is an instrument to receive justification and it is not by works. It leads to a changed human being.
As I understand, from the many histories I've read of theology, and the many endless hours of lectures I listened to from people like R.C. Sproul, this language of "instrumental" causes, "efficient" causes, etc. is philosophical language borrowed from Aristotelian categories. Which is fine, but that philosophical grid was never really leveraged much in Eastern thought. Historically speaking, the rise of scholasticism in the West, followed by the Renaissance, the birth of humanism (eventually the enlightenment) followed from a sort of resurrection of Aristotle. The theology of Aquinas was something of a fusion of Christian thought with Aristotle's logic.
You will find very little parallel in Orthodox discussions of theology. This is why there's no direct and exact parallel to the Protestant understanding of justification. It's a different mindset, a different grid.
In principle I don't disagree with any of what you're saying...surely we are born again, we are justified, we are changed, we are enlightened. However, following Scripture and the Father's understanding of it, I cannot separate baptism from rebirth, or for that matter from justification. Nor can I separate it from faith. It's all one package. In the patristic sources I've read, in the ancient prayers and liturgies, and in the many commentaries and histories, it's well established that "regenerated" and "born again" and "enlightened" and yes, even "Justified" are all synonymous with "baptized."
This is why, for Orthodoxy, there is absolutely no contradiction between having faith in Christ alone, and believing in sacramental grace. Grace, for us, IS the presence of God that changes and conforms us to his renewed image. The Christian life is sacramental, and every act we do that is in cooperation with the Holy Spirit is sacramental. To trust in Christ alone, is to trust in His body, and we are brought into deeper union with his body through encountering sacramental grace--chiefly present to us in the Eucharist, which IS his body. In receiving his body into ourselves, we ourselves are transformed into his body.
Trippy, huh?
In Protestant categories, owing to its rejection of Roman Catholicism but its retention of Rome's overall scholastic and rational grid, to trust in Christ "alone" usually means "we don't need any church or any sacraments." Such a distinction and opposition, in Orthodoxy, is nonsensical. DOES-NOT-COMPUTE.
As for the nature of the church, the Scriptures use a range of metaphors: family (Mt 12:49-50), bride (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:32), branches on a vine (Jn 15:5), a harvest (Mt 13:1-30), a building (1 Cor 3:9), a new temple of living stones (1 Pt 2:5), holy priesthood (1 Pt 2:5), body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-27; Eph 1:22-23), etc.
You stated:
The evangelical notion, basically, that the Church is the voluntary association of individually saved believers, is something I simply cannot find, either in Scripture or in the writings of any fathers I've read. For that matter I really couldn't find that notion in the writings of Calvin.
Does your church not involve people choosing to come together to worship? Or is it a forced requirement? Therefore, what's your objection to 'voluntary association' if people make a choice to come together to praise and worship as saved believers?
Participation isn't forced (well, historically it often was, which is unfortunate, but then state-enforced conformity to religion happened just about anywhere there was a state Church, so everyone's "guilty" in that regard). Yes, it's voluntary. But in our view, the Church exists in all its fullness whether or not people gather together. The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ, it depends upon nothing and nobody. We are saved into that Body, as I said earlier. We believe that Christ left his earthly Body under the guidance of the apostles in communion with one another, and this same communion has continued to the present day, represented chiefly in the office of the bishop (but fully including the laity...the priesthood of Christ is shared among all who are in the Church).
Thus, what I meant was, if a group of people come together, read bibles, agree upon a set of doctrines, buy a building, appoint someone to be in charge, and then come together to worship the way they think the Bible says they should--this does not make them The Church. The Church already exists, and they can either come into it, or exist alongside it. Hundreds and thousands of such groups that all disagree and break communion with each other, cannot represent the same communion that was held among the apostles.
This I find:
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up (
I Cor 14:26 NIV).
But this is an experience that is far removed from the churches I've been associated with. Does it happen regularly (every Sunday?) at your church gathering?
Well...we sign hymns, we offer prayers, we instruct from the Scriptures, and we do everything for the building up of the Church. So I guess that means yes
Every Sunday we celebrate the Divine Liturgy...meaning "the work done for God." Worship is the work of the people.
I have no problems acknowledging individual people making up a group, whether that is the church as the body of Christ, individuals joining a group for political purposes (like a political party), or individual IT geeks being part of an IT club.
In these examples, the IT Geek Group doesn't exist apart from the collection of the individuals who came together to create it. It doesn't exist...then individuals come together...then it exists by virtue of their participation in it.
The Church, on the other hand, is a reality that already exists. Individuals come into that Church, as members of the Body. They gather for worship in local congregations...each (per Ignatius of Antioch, whose basic simple AD 120 theology is still the bedrock of Orthodox ecclesiology) congregation worships in communion with one another, in communion with their bishop, who together with the people offers the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body of Christ...wherever it is celebrated, the
whole Church in all its mystical but real fullness is present.
Millions of little congregations don't add up to the One Church. Rather, the One Church is fully and truly present
everywhere the Eucharist is celebrated.
The same cannot be said of IT Geeks
I find it harmonious that I can identify as a born-again, justified Christian believer and am also a member of the church universal, the body/bride of Christ.
Oz
It's certainly harmonious, and it cannot be separated.